In christian theology, and lets be serious that really what were talking about here. The Antichrist is depicted as a wholly different person. In the bible (I believe John 1 and 2), Nostradamus prophecies, and I believe also some Jewish and Islamic texts its the same. I do not know of any actual written document discussing Jesus being the Antichrist within actual christian Theology so I doubt the legitimacy of that claim

First off, what would be considered Christian theology. There's at least 40 mainstream faiths classified as Christianity, all differing on points of theology. Not even counting all those smaller sects so I figure any of those would be christian theology. even the version Vekseid mentions.

Then there is the fact that unlike many other religions most of the Christian faiths tend to cherry pick which texts are true and which are false mostly on what the church wants to be true. Most notably this is true in my own sect. Roman Catholicism. Starting with the first council of Nicea in 325AD, and even today with their refusal to acknowledge the dead sea scrolls, or the gospel of thomas, or that of Judas.

This cherry picking is not restricted to Christians, but they are the most obvious ones at work today.

Now I commend you for being able to hold on to your faith in these times, however , like Martin Luther I believe god gave man free will so they could decide for themselves.

I agree with you on the fact that we shouldn't side all Christians with a few whackjobs who believe someone is the Antichrist just because he said a few words, but that's the same thing as two Muslims getting kicked off a plane this week cause the rest of the passengers thought they were terrorists. Most people Generalize without realizing it, it's part of our survival instinct.

My question here remains how people can be sure they have the right answer, if they only have part of the question, and use only the sources they pick themselves.

You are probably right. There have been so many times where I have told myself this is the last time Ill visit P&R but like an idiot I keep coming back here. Looking for some kind of fair intellectual discussion only to keep finding posts that anger me for varying reasons

<SNIP BY POINTLESS DIGRESSION>

As intelligent as I like to consider myself I am not a scholar. The fact is, I'm a blue collar guy who lives his life through hard work. I don't have the time nor really the interest to pour through tens of thousands of pages to make sure each anti-christ claim is true or not. So I have to rely on my gut and my gut says that this specific group is full of it but only this specific group. My gut also says that in the future someone might make the claim and they might be right.

Here's some well-intentioned advice. If you honestly want to have some fair, intelligent discussion, don't evaluate claims by their truthiness.

It's worth noting that there's also a fairly well established school of Protestant thought that holds the Catholic Church in general and the pope of the day as the Antichrist.

The synod to which my family belongs issued this as an official statement. But I'm pretty sure the pope (whatever his other failings) professes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, so I'm not sure this is consistent with what little the Bible has to say about the "antichrist."

As intelligent as I like to consider myself I am not a scholar. The fact is, I'm a blue collar guy who lives his life through hard work. I don't have the time nor really the interest to pour through tens of thousands of pages to make sure each anti-christ claim is true or not. So I have to rely on my gut and my gut says that this specific group is full of it but only this specific group. My gut also says that in the future someone might make the claim and they might be right

Actually, this is about how most religious-based research is done, is by gut instinct and conclusion-lead research, given that there's very little of factual substance that's ever come out of it. Bold statement? Maybe, but to my knowledge, we have yet to see researchers procure something that solidifies that Christianity and the Bible for that matter have tangible evidence of being true -- if they had, I think it'd be flashed around in the faces of non-believers quite a bit more. Instead, we get bi-annual announcements that yet again, someone thinks they've found Noah's Ark that inevitably turns out to be something quite average, or another guy has found an ancient Bible that also is quite unremarkable under a little bit of actual research.

Throw up your red flags if you'd like, but I don't have to respect Biblical research because there so happens to be people who consider themselves Christian any more than most Christians couldn't care less about doing research into, say, the Qur'an that seems to prove Islam, either. People pour "honest" effort and research into pseudoscience or conclusion-lead research every single day and that doesn't mean they earn a shred of my respect -- au contraire, I have a lot of disdain for things like holistic healing and conspiracy theorists and the whole birther movement in general.

Quote

Ill say it again, humor is subjective and has almost everything to do with detatchment. I feel there is room for poking fun at any subject but for everyone there is a line for when humor goes to far. I try my best not to comment on clearly thing regarding Christianity or catholocism at all because I know Im attatched to it, I dont see absurdity as easily or at all when compared to those who are detatched but for me you went to far. What was humor became blatant disrespect

This is just patently false. I hate to burst your bubble, but you're not the only Christian here, and some of those Christians don't need a knight in shining armor riding up to defend their religion on their behalf. Some even laugh about it. Some even take part in expressing their unhappiness with the amount of loaded research and cherry-picking done. Your offensive is not universal.

If humor has "almost everything" to do with detachment, then you might want to dial up Dave Chappelle and let him know that he needs to stop talking about black people, or that Sarah Silverman can't talk about women, or that Jon Stewart can't make jokes about politics or New Yorkers or Jews, for that matter.

The real joke here, as I think you will agree, is that these people blow their horns about just anybody and their research is laughable, at best, due to rampant cases of matching the evidence to the conclusion and not the other way around. There are almost never any facts attached to this subject aside from those that agree with Biblical literalism, and I fully well understand how you feel about your beliefs, but that is not enough, full stop. There are people who are predicting May 21st as the Rapture based on utter BS that someone else cherry-picked out of the Bible and I consider them also as worthy of ridicule as anybody else. Bad ideas deserve a bad response. There is a family with a small child who budgeted their money so that they will have spent it all by May 21st -- and I sure hope their predictions are right, otherwise they just put the well-being of their child in jeopardy due to their own hysteria, which is arguably a Very Bad Idea.

I find this level of stupidity offensive, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to shout out their antichrist claims. Freedom of speech is a double edged sword -- or more appropriately now a days, a whiffleball bat with the handle drenched in piss.

Anyone can be found to be the anto-Christ. Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kim Jong Ill, any of our Presidents, anyone. I'm not a christian anymore and I have aways laughed at those who say we are in the End Times and the Anto-christ is here. Supposedly, doesn't it say that the Christians will not know when this happens?

None shall know the day or the hour! Which is why as long as Christians keep making "end times" claims, the world will go on forever.

Yup.

OMG! The Mayans say the world is ending in 2012!!! They aren't Christians so it MUST be true!

(ignoring the fact of the Mayan calander cycle and the fact they made the 'current' one about a thousand years ago and might have thought they had time in that thousand years to make another before it ran out. )

I may be wrong, but I think that the passages in the Gospels use 'antichrist' to refer to someone (anyone) who is simply going against the teachings of the Gospel. In Revelations, the term is used in a more titular form to refer to a specific individual whose appearance signifies the beginning of the End Times.

Regardless, every time that I've seen a claim about a specific individual in modern times being 'The Antichrist', the so-called researcher spends half the explanation massaging the 'data' to fit whatever prediction they are working off of. This ranges from pointing out that 'Ronald Wilson Reagan' has 6 letters in each name, and OMG!1! 6-6-6 is the Number of the Beast!, to using some kind of pseudo-numerological calculation like this:

Quote

About Bill Gates and Microsoft: Proof that Bill Gates is the devil: The real name of Bill Gates is William Henry Gates III. Nowadays, he is known as Bill Gates (III), where III means order of the third (3rd). In converting the letters of his current name to ASCII- VALUES:

There's also an Easter egg in Excel '95 called the Hall of Lost Souls (actually, the programmer credits, but you can see where people jumped on the connection.)

Point being, I could take the name of anyone I didn't like, make up a loosely-justified formula or numbering system that adds them up to 666 and declare that I've 'solved' the riddle of Revelations. I saw one that claimed WWW was also able to be written as V/V/V/, which can then be read as VI VI VI, or 666.

The trick is in rationalizing the numbers that you need to add/take away in order to get to 666.

For example:3= the Trinity5= the number of points in a pentagram (good if you need to add 5)7= the day God rested11 = the number of apostles (without Judas)12 = the number of apostles (with Judas)13 = the number of people at the Last Supper (apostles + Jesus)

We used to do exercises in math class where you take a small number of integers and use them to get as many results as possible, using standard operations. Of course, as St. Augustine once said: 'The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.' (used to have that on my dorm wall)

Was that part of the contract you signed with him? mathematician has thirteen letters. Lucifer was the thirteenth archangel. mathematicians search for perfect facts free from emotion or prejudice. Lucifer by many apocryphal accounts was perfection without emotion or prejudice before his fall

No. Far from it. The Gnostic-Unitarian-Trinitarian division predates the Vulgate. There were many conflicting Gospels, as everyone wanted their bit of influence over Christianity, and many decidedly non-Christian teachings made it into the Bible e.g. the breaking of the bread.

Gnosticism teaches that the material world is a false, imperfect thing, and created by a flawed entity known as the Demiurge. In many original Gnostic sects, the Demiurge was the God of the Hebrews - Yahweh. In others, especially later versions such as the Cathars, the Demiurge was Satan. The Demiurge is sometimes depicted as evil, other times, merely flawed. Where the Demiurge was Yahweh, the Hebrew scriptures are thought of as somewhat true - but from a different perspective - Elohim is afraid of humanity, and seeks to keep humans from achieving Gnosis (knowledge) and thus surpassing him. The Serpent - Jesus - comes to Earth to attempt to give humans this special knowledge, that they may escape from the Demiurge's prison.

Because of this belief - that the material world is a false, illusory thing - Gnostics did not believe that Jesus was human. Which is what this line

After doing some research of my own into Gnostic beliefs I found the following information which seems to counter your claim that they believed Christ was simultaneously the anti-christ

Quote

Christ: The role of the redeemer in Gnostic belief is heavily debated at this time. Gnostics seem to have looked upon Christ as a revealer or liberator, rather than a savior or judge. His purpose was to spread knowledge which would free individuals from the Demiurge's control and allow them to return to their spiritual home with the Supreme God at death. Some Gnostic groups promoted Docetism, the belief that Christ was pure spirit and only had a phantom body; Jesus just appeared to be human to his followers. They reasoned that a true emissary from the Supreme God could not have been overcome by the evil of the world, and to have suffered and died. These beliefs were considered heresy by many non-Gnostic Christians. Some Gnostics believed that Christ's resurrection occurred at or before Jesus' death on the cross. They defined his resurrection as occurring when his spirit was liberated from his body. Many Gnostics believed that Jesus had both male and female disciples.

Deity: The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. (Demiurge means "public craftsman" in Greek.) This lower God is sometimes called Yaldabaoth or Ialdabaoth Jaldabaoth -- from Aramaic words meaning "begetter of the Heavens." This is Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He is portrayed as the creator of the earth and its life forms. He is viewed by Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion, and prone to genocide. The Demiurge "thinks that he is supreme. His pride and incompetence have resulted in the sorry state of the world as we know it, and in the blind and ignorant condition of most of mankind."

I still have to look up and study in detail the Unitarian and Trinitarian points of view. I skimmed them thinking that maybe you got names mixed up but I didnt see anything regarding Jesus or any other messiah type person as the anti-christ

Quote

Nostradamus has made no verifiable predictions. People only claim he predicted something after the fact. That does not qualify.

Be that as it may the historical community still refers to him regarding legitimate anti-christ studies

Quote

Modern Christian eschatology is no more relevant than any other work of fiction. I find early Christian history fascinating, personally, but there's nothing supernatural to it - it was nothing more than political mudslinging of the time.

I think thats more of an opinion then fact considering we werent around that time and there is no verifiable evidence to determine the credibility or lack there of of any individuals. There are certainly phenomena across the world that science has yet to explain, the question is for these ancient events was it misinterpretation of an event that couldnt be understood by the people at the time or something truly supernatural? Its impossible to tell

After doing some research of my own into Gnostic beliefs I found the following information which seems to counter your claim that they believed Christ was simultaneously the anti-christ

I made no such claim.

And if all you did was look up OCRT, then no, you did not do any significant research. I was a donor to OCRT, but ultimately, their articles on Gnosticism are mostly a decade old now.

Quote

Also information on the Demiurge from the same sight

This is largely the Egyptian-Syrian Gnosticism, mind. There are other views on the Demiurge. Oddly enough, it wasn't the Demiurge that caused Pauline Christians to be so hostile to Gnostics.

Quote

I still have to look up and study in detail the Unitarian and Trinitarian points of view. I skimmed them thinking that maybe you got names mixed up but I didnt see anything regarding Jesus or any other messiah type person as the anti-christ

Read my quotes from John again. And note that Gnostic Christians largely did not believe that Jesus was of the flesh - but only a spirit.

The Epistles of John were written in part to condemn this heresy, and others. Those who promote such a heresy (amongst others) are antichrists. To John, they put something 'in place of' Christ.

At its core, the notion of an antichrist is nothing but a political attack on Jews, Gnostics, Ebionites, Unitarians and other heresies. The culmination of a second coming of Jesus in any of these philosophies - e.g. the return of Jesus according to Islam - is also an Antichrist, according to standard Trinitarian theology.

Quote

Be that as it may the historical community still refers to him regarding legitimate anti-christ studies

I find that to be ludicrous. You're not even familiar with the 'heresies' the notion of the antichrist was invoked to condemn, and you claim something -else- is legitimate?

Quote

I think thats more of an opinion then fact considering we werent around that time and there is no verifiable evidence to determine the credibility or lack there of of any individuals. There are certainly phenomena across the world that science has yet to explain, the question is for these ancient events was it misinterpretation of an event that couldnt be understood by the people at the time or something truly supernatural? Its impossible to tell

We're referring to something quite pedestrian here - not miracles - but rather the specific claims in the Epistles which are associated with 'sorts of antichrist' - people who deny that Jesus was of the flesh. People who deny that Jesus was the Son of God, or that the Son was on par with the Father. People who deny that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah). These each refer to specific, very-well documented groups of people. Gnostics, Unitarians, Ebionites, and Jews, respectively.

That's it. That's all. Anything further involves much more nuanced reading, and you can warp it into nearly anything you like - to claim that Jesus is actually Satan, to claim that a second coming of Christ would be the Antichrist - whatever - and they are no less tenuous than most of the crap spewed by people who claim that the Pope is the Antichrist, for example, or any other 'legitimate research' as you call it.

For crying out loud, this stuff is why you have the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. To reject 'heresies'.

Was that part of the contract you signed with him? mathematician has thirteen letters. Lucifer was the thirteenth archangel. mathematicians search for perfect facts free from emotion or prejudice. Lucifer by many apocryphal accounts was perfection without emotion or prejudice before his fall

ergo, mathematicians are working for the morningstar.

Pfeh - easier than that. You do know how one got into the Brotherhood of the Pythagoreans, right? You construct a regular pentagram with straightedge and compass alone. (Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Try the Beef Wellington, and remember to tip your waitress!)

A few historical figures that were once thought to be the Antichrist are Hitler and George Washington. The world hasn't ended yet, so I'm guessing they were wrong. And it does say in the Bible that only God himself knows when the world will end. These people insist on taking the words in the Bible literally, and yet, they conveniently forget that part.

Personally, I would much rather not worry about it and enjoy my life. The way I see it, if the world does end, then at least I will have gotten something out of life. But these people, especially the lady I used to talk to, will have spent their lives obsessing over prophecy and living in fear.

"Between February 2009 and March 2010 our research group examined over 4000 pieces of documentation regarding the coming New World Order and the key people involved, both those in the public spotlight and others who remain behind the scenes.

The purpose of the research was to see identify substantial links to Barack Obama or any of the key people associated with him, and to understand his political ideology, views on faith and morals and religious associations.

We studied more than 5000 hours worth of footage on all his speeches, looking out for views, comments or words which may carry coded or cryptic messages missed by the general public but discerned by others.

A New Sickening Discovery!

In November 2009 after assessing over 3000 pieces of documentation our research team uncovered some damning and frightening evidence that completely changed our view of him Totally.

The information was so startling that at first we refused to believe it but additional analysis of confidential documents made our fears come true and it was an undeniable fact. There was a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach because I literally had to undo everything I had liked about this man in light of the chilling evidence."

I wonder if they analyzed his tv speeches and press briefings backwards to find hidden invocations of Satan in the classic Led Zeppelin fashion?

Moreover, Barack Obama is a descendant of the Merovingian French kings of the 6th to 8th century - a particularly cruel bunch that spent time trying to assassinate each other and torturing their own advisors. The link is investigated by the people who chaired the investigation just quoted, and it also seems to include Harry Truman and Dick Cheney, possibly also the Bush family.

Look, I'm a Christian and this is all I'm going to say on this:

Oh my, God! Another one! Let me just throw him on the pile next to every other declared Antichrist from Martin Luther onward then. We seem to get a new one every generation. Maybe I should start up a commemorative plate collection.

I think the point behind the Antichrist is no one's going to know it until it's too late anyway. It's not something you can determine.

That is the source of the term - people who would deny that Jesus was of the flesh. It was an attack by Trinitarian Christians on Gnostic Christians and Unitarian Christians.

There isnt a lot of room for interpretation in that sentance. Granted you go on to talk about anti-christ being more of a political term against different beliefs but thats a different side of the discussion from Gnostic beliefs about Jesus and one I dont really have a problem with. From the start my problem has been the modern images of the anti-christ being applied to Jesus when there is to my knowledge no evidence that he would be a candidate for the final anti-christ or the two heralds that are supposed to proceeed him. As I said, I find it disrespectful to people who actually do legitimate historical research and to a lesser extent christians

Now, many times we have used OCRT as a resource for multiple conversations in P&R when it comes to religion. I have taken the site at face value in the past as have others. If you have an issue with it then I would ask you post your own source of information

Read my quotes from John again. And note that Gnostic Christians largely did not believe that Jesus was of the flesh - but only a spirit.

The Epistles of John were written in part to condemn this heresy, and others. Those who promote such a heresy (amongst others) are antichrists. To John, they put something 'in place of' Christ.

At its core, the notion of an antichrist is nothing but a political attack on Jews, Gnostics, Ebionites, Unitarians and other heresies. The culmination of a second coming of Jesus in any of these philosophies - e.g. the return of Jesus according to Islam - is also an Antichrist, according to standard Trinitarian theology.

Yes the political term, I think we already established that and I didnt feel further discussion was needed on it. I still dont. However there is more to the title of anti-christ then just a political term

I find that to be ludicrous. You're not even familiar with the 'heresies' the notion of the antichrist was invoked to condemn, and you claim something -else- is legitimate?

Ill say it again. I am not a scholar. My knowledge about this is very limited but I do know some things. One of those things includes that there are historians that have spent their lives studying items like Nostrodamus prophecies, the dead sea scrolls, the bible, and more as it pertains to the prediction, story, myth, legend, whatever you want to call it of the anti-christ. Im not talking about the kinds of people who say Obama is the anti-christ, Im talking about actual professers who do legitimate historical research

We're referring to something quite pedestrian here - not miracles - but rather the specific claims in the Epistles which are associated with 'sorts of antichrist' - people who deny that Jesus was of the flesh. People who deny that Jesus was the Son of God, or that the Son was on par with the Father. People who deny that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah). These each refer to specific, very-well documented groups of people. Gnostics, Unitarians, Ebionites, and Jews, respectively.

That's it. That's all. Anything further involves much more nuanced reading, and you can warp it into nearly anything you like - to claim that Jesus is actually Satan, to claim that a second coming of Christ would be the Antichrist - whatever - and they are no less tenuous than most of the crap spewed by people who claim that the Pope is the Antichrist, for example, or any other 'legitimate research' as you call it.

For crying out loud, this stuff is why you have the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. To reject 'heresies'.

I think Im going to take a break from the thread for a few days because its clear were not clicking on the actual topic the other is trying to discuss. I dont know if Im not explaining myself clearly enough, if you arent understanding me, if its a mix of both, or even if its something else but it seems like somethings preventing us from communicating in any meaningful manner

There isnt a lot of room for interpretation in that sentance. Granted you go on to talk about anti-christ being more of a political term against different beliefs but thats a different side of the discussion from Gnostic beliefs about Jesus and one I dont really have a problem with. From the start my problem has been the modern images of the anti-christ being applied to Jesus when there is to my knowledge no evidence that he would be a candidate for the final anti-christ or the two heralds that are supposed to proceeed him. As I said, I find it disrespectful to people who actually do legitimate historical research and to a lesser extent christians

That says nothing about the Gnostics believing such. The Trinitarians believed the Gnostic Jesus was an anti-christ. If the Gnostic Jesus returned to Earth, he would be considered the Antichrist by Trinitarians - a false Jesus. Something in his place. That is the definition.

Quote

Now, many times we have used OCRT as a resource for multiple conversations in P&R when it comes to religion. I have taken the site at face value in the past as have others. If you have an issue with it then I would ask you post your own source of information

http://gnosis.org/ has translated versions of most of the surviving texts. If you want, read them yourself. Most of what we get from Gnosticism comes from their critics, however, as most of their writing was burned.

Quote

Yes the political term, I think we already established that and I didnt feel further discussion was needed on it. I still dont. However there is more to the title of anti-christ then just a political term

Alright.

The Bible also has the False Prophet and the Man of Sin, and Islam has a related term in the deceiving messiah - but the culmination of the Antichrist is very specifically said to be gathered from the spirit of the other antichrists who were around at the time. That means it is described as a version of Jesus who has one of those traits - claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, claiming to be a spirit and not of the flesh, the Islamic account of the second coming of Jesus would also qualify as the Islamic Jesus is not divine. Even if one of those faiths turns out to be accurate, to mainstream, modern Christianity, it's still the Antichrist.

Quote

Ill say it again. I am not a scholar. My knowledge about this is very limited but I do know some things. One of those things includes that there are historians that have spent their lives studying items like Nostrodamus prophecies, the dead sea scrolls, the bible, and more as it pertains to the prediction, story, myth, legend, whatever you want to call it of the anti-christ. Im not talking about the kinds of people who say Obama is the anti-christ, Im talking about actual professers who do legitimate historical research

Name one, and point us to their work. Nostradamus does not count, as mentioned he has made no actual successful predictions and, thus, is not a prophet.

Basically, it's religious people (nutcases most of them, but they are still religious) people that make the claim of 'anti-christ' in a semi or completely serious way. So they should be able to handle it being turned back upon them. That shows how easy it is to lable almost anyone the anti-christ. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Oh my, God! Another one! Let me just throw him on the pile next to every other declared Antichrist from Martin Luther onward then. We seem to get a new one every generation. Maybe I should start up a commemorative plate collection.

I think the point behind the Antichrist is no one's going to know it until it's too late anyway. It's not something you can determine.

I totally agree with that.

There is generations of people supposedly being the Antichrist and it does seem like we get a new one with each new generation. We won't know who the antichrist is or when the end of time is until it is happening. A human mind can't figure out God's mind. Only he can determine when things will be set in motion or if it has been set in motion.